![]() ![]() to expand one staff into two parts intelligently. There’s a Finale plug-in that does exactly this: uses the information from “1.” and “2.” and “a 2” etc. E.g., if I could say “The oboe section has three players and player 3 doubles on English Horn” - and provided I correctly notate my score -have the parts automatically generated from the conductor’s score? That would be a killer feature. …it would be a tremendous time saver if Dorico could use this notation to automatically generate parts from the conductor’s score. And even as things are right now, it is still substantially easier to handle this in Dorico than the competition. Needless to say, I don’t know if this is possible. The reason I bring all this up is that it would be a tremendous time saver if Dorico could use this notation to automatically generate parts from the conductor’s score. This is described in detail in Gould’s Behind Bars in the section on Stave Sharing in Chapter 17. In a really complicated situation there may be a need to go to 2 staves, but those are exceptions. It gets a bit more complicated if lines cross and/or if there are rests. If there are two notes, then it is assumed that player 1 plays the top note and player 2 the bottom. If both player are playing in unison, you put a.2. Just to give the simplest example, if you have 2 bassoons and only player 1 is playing, you put 1. With that in mind - and apologies if I’m telling you something you already know - there is already a system which allows you to notate on one stave and yet unambiguously tells the conductor exactly which player is handling which notes. This eliminates anywhere from 7 to 10+ staves on your score - and makes it much easier to see what’s going on. For brass I also prefer one stave per instrument, although I could see the need for two horn staves if you have 4 horn players. As a background to this - and speaking as a composer here - I personally find it much easier to compose onto the conductor’s score - one stave for each woodwind regardless of how many players. Meanwhile, at the risk of hi-jacking this thread,I’d like to suggest an alternate new feature. I now know a bunch of things that do not work.īut yes, I agree that this is not the right approach. ![]() Anyway, this hasn’t been a completely wasted effort. You shouldn’t have your contrabassoon and basson 1/2 instruments held by the same player.Īh, so that’s the reason I’ve been getting dizzy. I think you’re going to go around in circles in various unsatisfactory ways pursuing this approach. Is there an easier way to handle this request? In either approach, if I need to make changes after I have done this process, I have to make changes in two (or 3 places). I know I can compose in the full score - and when I am done I can clone off the instrument parts into two new hidden instruments, then edit each of the two hidden parts to handle divisi situations - but that’s clumsy and error proneĪlternatively I could have a temporary full score with both sets of players, compose in the full score for both players, then create a third combined player for a final full score, and somehow merge the two players together. But for the full score, the requirement is that the 2 payers be combined onto one stave.ĪFAICT there is no straight forward way to do this. For the parts I’ve been requested to have either separate Staves or separate parts for the individual players - even if they are playing in unison. My orchestral piece has 2 each of Woodwinds & most Brass. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |